Monday, 13 October 2014

14 October 2014

So, we are
embarking on a rapid, four week review of our intelligence and security
settings in the light of the rise of ISIL and associated groups. But did we not
have a major review of the GCSB legislation last year, and was not one of the
outcomes of that review a new requirement that from 30 June 2015 the GCSB and
the SIS would be independently reviewed every 5 to 7 years to ensure that they
remain relevant and fit for purpose?

The answer to
each of those questions is yes, so what has changed so dramatically in the last
12 months to apparently override all of this? The rise of what Minister
Finlayson described as the “international terrorist” as evidenced most
dramatically by the ISIL is the obvious answer. Repugnant as ISIL’s and related
factions’ actions have been, the term is essentially pejorative, and needs to
be treated with some caution. After all, we used to talk of “freedom fighters”
to cover people who joined a variety of “liberation” movements to fight for
decolonisation in Africa and Asia, without attracting huge security attention.
When New Zealanders were killed in such actions, in East Timor for example, we
took clear stances to find out what had happened. And in an earlier generation,
many idealistic, progressive young people, New Zealanders included, joined the
International Brigade to fight fascism in the Spanish Civil War.

So what has
changed? Is it the graphic display of the brutal atrocities being carried out
by groups like ISIL? Or the cause they are perceived to represent in this post 9/11
world?

Whatever the
reason, all governments (curiously most reporting always contains the adjective
“western” governments, which may of itself be telling) are responding. That in
turn is bringing renewed focus upon international intelligence sharing arrangements,
in New Zealand’s case Five Eyes, and the extent to which national sovereignty
is being influenced if not actually limited by the information being obtained
and shared.

Now these are not
necessarily reasons why we should be wary of the urgent review being
undertaken, but they raise very serious questions about the timing and the
apparent rush to complete it, compared to, say, the more deliberate way we are
approaching the potential Ebola pandemic, arguably of far greater risk to
humanity. (The Prime Minister has spoken of legislation being passed under
Urgency by the end of the year.) Yet we are scheduled to have a fully
independent review of our security services as soon as possible after 30 June
2015, and Minister Finlayson was reported at the weekend noting the importance
of that process.

Until the case
for urgency is made, we are all left to speculate. For example, has this got
something to do with shoring up support for our UN Security Council seat bid,
or placing New Zealand in a good international position ahead of next month’s
G20 meeting? Or will the Prime Minister’s promised major speech in the next few
weeks reveal a set of circumstances so compelling to make obvious the need to
leap-frog next year’s planned reviews and introduce new measures now, which
ironically may not survive those reviews?

Time will tell,
but, in the meantime, a dose of healthy caution is warranted. Breathing
steadily and deeply and focusing on the facts, not the emotive hyperbole, is
the best way forward.